Benjamin James Smith & Anor v Richard Copestake

Benjamin James Smith & Anor v Richard Copestake

The application for interim injunctive relief was dismissed because the claimants failed to meet the threshold that it was more likely than not that publication should not be allowed, and damages were found to be an adequate remedy for breach of contract and intellectual property retention. The evidence did not support harassment or misuse of private information claims at this stage, and the relief sought was disproportionate.

Parties
First Claimant: Benjamin James Smith; Second Claimant: Rise Capital Holdings Limited; Defendant: Richard Copestake
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Injunction Application
Outcome
Application for interim injunctive relief dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Misuse of Private Information, Unlawful Interference, SLAPP, Disclosure Procedures
Defamation Harassment Breach of Confidence Contract Law Media Law Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Misuse of Private Information +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin James Smith

First Claimant

Rise Capital Holdings Limited

Second Claimant

Richard Copestake

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted for alleged defamation, harassment, breach of confidence, and unlawful interference
  2. 2 Whether the threshold for restraining publication affecting freedom of expression is met
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy for breach of contract and intellectual property retention

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interim injunctive relief was dismissed because the claimants failed to meet the threshold that it was more likely than not that publication should not be allowed, and damages were found to be an adequate remedy for breach of contract and intellectual property retention. The evidence did not support harassment or misuse of private information claims at this stage, and the relief sought was disproportionate.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunctive relief dismissed.

Orders

  • No interim injunction granted.
  • Parties advised to comply with procedural rules and review pleadings.